5.  The applicant was born in 1975. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Vilnius.
6.  On 10 March 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of belonging to a criminal association (nusikalstamas susivienijimas), led by a certain D.S., who had died during the pre-trial investigation. He was also suspected of having stolen three high value cars.
On the same day the Vilnius City First District Court ordered the applicant’s detention for three months. On 1 April 2004 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the decision. The courts observed that the applicant was suspected of a very serious crime: belonging to a criminal association since 2001. The charges against him were based on concrete evidence, and there was a risk that if he were not detained he might continue his criminal activities. He also had a prior conviction for disorderly conduct (chuliganizmas), for which he had already served a sentence. Therefore, his participation in the pre-trial investigation could be guaranteed only if he were remanded in custody. The applicant remained in custody in the Lukiškės Remand Prison.
7.  On 31 May 2004 the Vilnius City First District Court extended the applicant’s detention by three months, upholding the above reasons and adding that the crimes with which the applicant was charged had been committed over a long period of time. The court also considered that if the applicant were released pending trial, he could obstruct the investigation, influence the victims and witnesses, and contact other suspects, who were being searched for at that time. On 1 July 2004 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant.
8.  On 6 September 2004 the Vilnius Regional Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention. This time, the court observed that from 2002 to 2004 the applicant had been a member of a highly sophisticated criminal organisation and had taken part in the theft of seventeen high value cars in Lithuania. The cars had belonged to citizens of Lithuania, Germany, Latvia, Estonia, the Netherlands and Spain. The crimes had been committed in a “business” manner (versliškai), with a high level of conspiracy; each member of the criminal organisation had had a designated role. The criminal association had thereby caused serious loss to Lithuanian and foreign citizens. The court also noted that, in the meantime, many investigative measures – expert examinations, questioning of witnesses – had been carried out. Accordingly, there was no reason to consider that the pre-trial investigation had been delayed.
On 9 December 2004 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the decision for all the same reasons, but dismissed Vilnius City First District Court’s argument about the risk of the applicant obstructing the investigation by influencing witnesses as abstract and not based on specific facts. On the other hand, the Regional Court noted that the criminal case was especially complex, and that since the last decision to prolong the detention, further investigative actions had been carried out.
9.  Once the pre-trial investigation in the first criminal case was concluded in February 2005, the final notice of suspicion encompassed participation in a criminal association, committing or attempting to commit thefts of high value property (some twenty counts), destruction of property, acquiring high value property by criminal means and the theft of documents.
10.  On 9 March 2005 the Vilnius Regional Court extended the detention on remand for another three months. On 30 March 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant, on the ground that he might try to hinder the investigation and influence witnesses. The appellate court observed that, although the case had been forwarded to the trial court for examination, the applicant might try to influence the witnesses who had yet to testify in court. The court also took into account the seriousness of the accusations against the applicant and his prior conviction.
11.  On 31 May 2005 the Vilnius Regional Court sanctioned another three months of detention on the grounds that the applicant was accused of very serious crimes and that he had a prior conviction. The court also emphasised that the case had just been transferred to the trial court and the evidence had not yet been examined in a courtroom. Likewise, all the co-accused had not yet been questioned and most of the victims had not yet testified. Accordingly, there was a risk that the applicant, if released from detention, might influence those persons.
On 22 June 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld that decision, noting that Article 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure obliged the court to examine evidence – that is, to question the accused, the victims and witnesses – in the courtroom irrespective of whether they had been questioned during the pre-trial investigation. Taking into account that those actions had not yet been carried out and the applicant’s and his co-accused’s tactics of denying their involvement in the crimes, there was a risk that the co-accused might attempt to influence other participants in the proceedings if they were released from detention. Furthermore, the applicant had been charged with belonging to a criminal association and committing nearly twenty serious crimes. Given the scale and duration of the criminal activity, and the applicant’s active role in it, it was reasonable to believe that there were sound reasons for holding him in custody pending trial.
12.  On 9 September 2005 the Vilnius Regional Court again sanctioned the extension of the detention for three months.
13.  The applicant appealed, arguing that the accusations against him had not been proved in the courtroom and thus there were no grounds to hold that he had committed any crimes. Such a conclusion by the courts that had sanctioned his detention was in breach of his right to presumption of innocence. Neither was there any concrete proof that he could exert influence on other parties to the criminal proceedings if released. Lastly, the applicant maintained that he had already been detained for eighteen months. For ten of those months he had been denied any contact with his wife and family. Although at the time of appeal, his wife could visit him for one and a half hours a month under the supervision of a guard, because of the applicant’s status as a person charged with a crime (as opposed to a convicted person), conjugal visits were not allowed. Thus his status had placed him in a significantly worse situation than that of a convicted criminal. The applicant argued that long-term visits were physiologically necessary for both him and his wife, and that the lack thereof amounted to torture and was a method of extracting a confession.
14.  On 26 September 2005 the Court of Appeal held that the reasons for detention indicated in the earlier decisions continued to exist. The appellate court observed that, although it was true that the detention had been lengthy and had already lasted more than eighteen months, the maximum statutory limit of eighteen months was only applicable to detention during pre-trial investigations. This case had been forwarded to the trial court for examination; the law did not provide for any limitation on the length of detention once a case was being examined by the trial court. As to the applicant’s argument about breach of the presumption of innocence, the courts’ findings that the applicant had been implicated in the criminal acts were not the conclusion as to his guilt, but merely statements that there was sufficient evidence that he had committed the crimes for the purpose of deciding whether he should be held in detention. The question of his criminal liability was to be decided later, when the trial court adopted an accusatory or exculpatory judgment. Lastly, given the seriousness of the charges against the applicant, the public interest prevailed against his right to presumption of innocence and his other rights. It followed that the applicant’s argument that he had been discriminated against compared with a convicted person as regards the right to receive conjugal visits was unfounded.
15.  On 5 December 2005 the Vilnius Regional Court extended the detention by another three months, upholding the argument that the applicant had been charged with very serious and systematically committed crimes. By that time, most of the suspects and witnesses had already been questioned in court, but since it was not the case for the applicant and his co-accused, the reason to continue the pre-trial detention remained.
On 22 December 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant, also observing that the case was extremely complex.
16.  On 27 February 2006 the Vilnius Regional Court extended the detention for another three months, observing that the essential reasons for maintaining the applicant in detention had not changed. In addition, there had been a break in the proceedings because a photographic expert report had been ordered and the results were not due until the beginning of March. For that reason, the next court hearing had been scheduled for 17 March. The applicant’s arguments that by depriving him of long-term visits the investigators had been seeking to extract his confession were not founded, because the applicant had testified only when he had so wished – he had been silent during pre-trial investigation, but had chosen to testify only in court, and only after the witnesses had testified. Lastly, there was a risk that the applicant, if released pending trial, would go into hiding to avoid a possible heavy sentence.
On 15 March 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision.
17.  In June 2006 the applicant lodged another appeal against his detention. He argued that conditions in the Lukiškės Remand Prison, where he had already been detained for twenty-seven months, were atrocious. The cells were overcrowded, lacked proper ventilation and were full of smoke. The inmates could leave the cell for only one hour a day. They ate, slept, washed and used the toilet in the same cell. The applicant reiterated his argument that being deprived of long-term visits and thus physical contact with his wife for the entire twenty-seven months had had a mental and physical impact on his well-being. Such a measure was inhuman, degrading and in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Lastly, the applicant argued that his pre-trial detention amounted to a violation of Article 5 of the Convention. He considered that at that stage of the criminal proceedings, a milder remand measure could have been imposed on him.
18.  While acknowledging that the applicant had already been detained “for a long time”, on 9 June 2006 the Vilnius Regional Court extended his detention on the grounds that the crimes were particularly serious and the applicant risked a heavy sentence, so might go into hiding if released. It also noted that the criminal case was particularly complex – there were seven co-accused, some twenty criminal episodes, and more than eighty people to be questioned. The court also noted that the applicant’s complaint about inappropriate conditions of detention did not affect the validity of holding him in custody. The court decision stipulated that it could be appealed against to the Court of Appeal. The applicant states that he did not appeal against this decision because he was convicted ten days later.
19.  By a judgment of 19 June 2006, the Vilnius Regional Court found the applicant guilty of belonging to a criminal association, numerous counts of theft of high value property by participating in an organised group, destruction of property and theft of documents. The applicant was sentenced to twelve years’ of deprivation of liberty, the sentence to be served in a correctional home (pataisos namuose, see paragraphs 59-61 below). The time that the applicant had spent in pre-trial detention from 10 March 2004 was subsumed by the sentence. The court also ordered the continued detention of the applicant until the judgment came into force or he started serving his sentence.
Six of the applicant’s co-accused were also convicted. Their sentences ranged from a fine to twelve years’ imprisonment, depending on their roles in the criminal association and the crimes they had committed.
20. The applicant, one of the co-accused and the prosecutor lodged appeals against their convictions.
21.  On 1 September 2006 – prior to the coming into force of the trial court’s judgment – following a request by the applicant, pursuant to Article 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 70 below), he was transferred to the Kybartai Correctional Home to start serving his prison sentence.
22.  On 15 October 2008 the Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant in respect of the charge of belonging to a criminal association, but upheld the conviction as regards the remaining charges. The applicant’s conviction was amended to six years’ imprisonment.
23.  By a ruling of 26 May 2009, the Supreme Court referred the case for re-examination, having found that the appellate court had not taken into account all the circumstances of the case and the existing case-law, and thus had not properly reasoned its conclusion as to the applicant’s belonging to a criminal association.
24.  By a ruling of 24 April 2012 the Court of Appeal upheld the Vilnius Regional Court’s verdict of 19 June 2006, with minor amendments.
25.  While the applicant was still serving his sentence in the first criminal case in the Kybartai Correctional Home, the prosecutors of the Vilnius region were carrying out a pre-trial investigation in another criminal case which also concerned two counts of theft of high value cars, in 2001 and 2002, committed by an organised group. There were six persons in that group: the applicant, four persons other than those who were charged in the first set of criminal proceedings, and their leader, the same D.S. as the one charged in the first set of criminal proceedings (see paragraph 6 above). Having questioned and charged the applicant, on 15 June 2007 the prosecutor asked the court to have the applicant transferred from the Kybartai Correctional Home to the Lukiškes Remand Prison for a period of two months, so that they could finish the pre-trial investigation and the applicant could read the voluminous pre-trial investigation materials.
26.  On the same day, pursuant to a detention order issued by the Vilnius City First District Court, the applicant was moved back to the Lukiškės Remand Prison. The court’s grounds for holding the applicant in pre-trial detention in the second set of criminal proceedings were the abundance of evidence implicating him in the car thefts, the high level of complicity of the criminal group, and the possibility of a heavy sentence on top of his conviction of 19 June 2006 for similar crimes. The court therefore considered that the applicant, if released, might obstruct the investigation by hiding from the investigators or the court, or commit further crimes. The court also emphasised that pre-trial detention was being imposed on the applicant in that second criminal case, irrespective of the fact that he was serving a custodial sentence for offences in the first criminal case.
27.  The applicant appealed, arguing that he had been placed in pre-trial detention as early as 10 March 2004 and that the length of his detention had been out of proportion. However, by a ruling of 5 July 2007 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court’s reasoning and pointing out that in the second criminal case the applicant had been remanded in custody only as of 15 June 2007.
28.  On 3 July 2007 the applicant asked the court to terminate the pre-trial investigation, arguing that it had been excessively long. He had been questioned as early as 10 March 2004, and the pre-trial investigation had been continuing ever since.
29.  On 17 July 2007 the Vilnius City First District Court dismissed the applicant’s request, finding that he had attempted to mislead the court by claiming that he had first been questioned as a suspect in this criminal case on 10 March 2004. He had in fact been questioned in a different criminal case, for which he had been convicted and was serving a custodial sentence. In the second criminal case the applicant had been questioned for the first time only on 15 June 2007, but had refused to reply. The court also held that there had been no delays in the pre-trial investigation. Lastly, the court observed that pursuant to Article 215 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a suspect could challenge the length of the pre-trial investigation if the investigation had not been terminated within six months, which was not yet the case for the applicant.
The applicant’s appeal was dismissed on 25 July 2007.
30.  On 14 August 2007 the Vilnius Regional Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a further three months on the grounds that there was sufficient evidence against him and he had a prior conviction for hooliganism. The court likewise observed that on 19 June 2006 the applicant had been convicted of numerous serious crimes committed by a criminal association, for which heavy deprivation of liberty sanctions applied. For the court, taking into account that the latter judgment had not yet come into force, it was reasonable to believe that the risk of a heavy prison sentence would give the applicant an incentive to hide from the court to avoid criminal liability. Thus the applicant’s pre-trial detention was in order to guarantee his participation in the proceedings.
On 30 August 2007 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant, upholding the lower court’s reasons and emphasising that the applicant was suspected of belonging to a criminal association, which was one of the most dangerous forms of criminal complicity.
31.  On 13 November 2007 the Vilnius Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention by another three months on the same grounds as before, reiterating that his twelve-year custodial sentence for the first set of criminal offences could give him a strong incentive to flee from justice if released pending his conviction of 19 June 2006.
On 13 December 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
32.  Following a decision by the Vilnius Regional Court of 12 February 2008, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was not extended further. Having heard the applicant, his lawyer and the prosecutor, the court held that the applicant’s conviction in the first set of criminal proceedings and, in particular, the fact that in those proceedings he had also been detained pending appeal, was sufficient guarantee that he would not flee from justice in the second set of criminal proceedings.
The Government state that immediately after this decision the applicant was transferred back to the Kybartai Correctional Home to continue serving his sentence.
33.  Following a judgment by the Vilnius Regional Court of 29 September 2008, the applicant was convicted on two counts of theft of high value property, committed by an organised group. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.
34.  On 23 February 2009 the conviction, with minor corrections, was upheld by the Court of Appeal. On 20 October 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant.
35.  The Government submitted that on 22 May 2009 the applicant had been transferred from the Kybartai Correctional Home to the Vilnius Second Correctional Home (Vilniaus antrieji pataisos namai), where he is currently serving his sentence.
36.  On 28 March 2006 the applicant wrote to the administration of the Lukiškės Remand Prison requesting a conjugal visit. He noted that during the pre-trial investigation, he had already been detained for more than two years, during which time he had had no physical contact with his wife. The applicant was quite open and wrote that “because of the lack of sexual contact” he was being tortured physically and mentally, and was in a state of constant stress. The same day, the remand prison administration told the applicant that detainees who had not been convicted had no right to conjugal visits.
37.  The applicant’s wife repeated her husband’s request on 4 April 2004. In a letter of 14 April 2004, the prison administration informed her that pursuant to Article 16 of the Law on Pre-trial Detention (Kardomojo kalinimo istatymas) and the Internal Regulations for Pre-trial Detention Facilities (Kardomojo kalinimo vietų vidaus tvarkos taisyklės) (see paragraphs 57-58 below) a detainee could receive visits from his relatives or other persons for up to two hours, provided that the prosecutor or court so permitted. The visits were to be held in a designated room in the detention facility, under the officers’ constant supervision. Only persons whom a court had sentenced to deprivation of liberty in a correctional home (pataisos namuose) had a right to conjugal visits. Accordingly, the Lukiškės Remand Prison administration dismissed the request.
38.  On 7 April 2006 the applicant challenged the above decision before the administrative courts. He emphasised that he had been held at the Lukiškės Remand Prison for more than two years without his wife being able to see him for a conjugal visit. The applicant maintained that the lack of conjugal visits for such a long time amounted to physical and mental torture, prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention, and was contributing to the destruction of his marriage and the deterioration of his family life. He also claimed that he had been punished without conviction, because the situation he was in could be compared to a criminal punishment.
39.  In support of her husband’s cause, the applicant’s wife also wrote to the court, stating that the absence of conjugal visits for more than two years had caused her “psychological and physical torture, was damaging her body and mind and destroying her marriage and her family’s well-being”. She asked the court to order the Lukiškės Remand Prison administration to grant the applicant conjugal visits, which “were necessary for her physical and psychological survival”.
40.  The applicant maintained his complaint at a hearing before the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court. He asked the court to annul the Lukiškės Remand Prison administration’s decision, irrespective of the fact that on 19 June 2006 he had already been convicted by a judgment which had not yet entered into force. The applicant also asked the court to disregard the fact that one month earlier he had asked to be transferred to a correctional home before the accusatory judgment came into force. On those last two points, the applicant noted that he did not know when he would be transferred to a correctional home from the Lukiškės Remand Prison. He also did not rule out the possibility that he might be returned to that remand prison in the future.
41.  On 11 September 2006 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court observed that only convicted detainees had a right to conjugal visits; when the applicant had submitted his request for a conjugal visit to the Lukiškės Remand Prison, he had not been convicted, therefore he had no such right. The court also found that the refusal to grant a conjugal visit could not amount to torture, because torture or cruel behaviour necessitated active actions. The Lukiškės Remand Prison administration had merely followed the letter of the law.
42.  It appears that the applicant did not appeal against the decision. By then he was already serving his sentence in the Kybartai Correctional Home, where he could receive conjugal visits.
43.  On 27 August 2007, when the applicant had again been placed in the Lukiškės Remand Prison in connection with the second set of criminal proceedings, he again requested a conjugal visit.
44.  On 11 September 2007 the remand prison administration informed the applicant that he did not have the right to conjugal visits because he was again being detained on suspicion of having committed offences which were still under investigation and his status was that of a remand prisoner.
45.  On 23 October 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, submitting that on 1 September 2006 he had been transferred to the Kybartai Correctional Home to serve his sentence, where he had received conjugal visits. Nevertheless, on 15 June 2007 he had been returned to the Lukiškės Remand Prison to be detained pending investigation. Observing that the Lukiškės Remand Prison had refused his request on the basis of the Law on Pre-trial Detention, the applicant argued that the aim of pre-trial detention measures should be not to punish or correct a person, but to guarantee that the proceedings run smoothly. He reiterated his argument about his entitlement to the presumption of innocence and argued that as a convicted person, he had been entitled to conjugal visits under the Code on the Execution of Sentences. For the applicant, the provisions of the Law on Pre-trial Detention barring detainees from receiving conjugal visits were in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. On the merits of his complaint, the applicant added that the absence of physical contact with his wife had been causing him physical and mental suffering. He also considered that “in a caring society (sąmoningoje visuomenėje) physical contact (a sexual relationship – lytiniai santykiai) was as normal an element of life as sleeping and eating”.
46.  In December 2007 the applicant asked the Vilnius Regional Court to return him to the Kybartai Correctional Home. However, on 18 December 2007 the court turned down the request on the ground that pending the outcome of the second set of criminal proceedings, the applicant’s legal status was that of a pre-trial detainee and, in accordance with the Law on Pre-trial Detention, detainees had to be held in a pre-trial detention facility. Accordingly, it was not possible to transfer the applicant from the Lukiškės Remand Prison to the Kybartai Correctional Home.
47.  By a decision of 17 January 2008 the Vilnius Regional Court ordered the Lukiškės Remand Prison administration to re-examine the applicant’s request. The court held that by treating the applicant only as a detainee and thus disregarding his conviction, the prison administration had interpreted the domestic law too narrowly and had ignored the applicant’s dual status. The court also noted that under point 124.2 of the Internal Regulations for Pre-trial Detention Facilities convicts who, like the applicant, had been transferred to a pre-trial detention facility from a prison pending pre-trial investigation in another case could receive conjugal visits. However, according to rule 125, if the detention facility had no specific premises for such visits, a long-term visit could be exchanged for two short- term visits. The Lukiškės Remand Prison administration was thus ordered to explain why point 124.2 of the regulations did not apply to the applicant and to answer the question whether there were facilities for conjugal visits at that institution.
48.  The applicant appealed, emphasising his dual status, being discriminated against and reiterating his urge for conjugal visits, which, at that time, appeared to be a question of “life or death”. He objected strongly to the application of rule 125, insisting that it was his right to choose whether to exchange a long-term (conjugal) visit for two short-term visits. The applicant also mentioned that at the Kybartai Correctional Home he had been assigned to the medium security level (see paragraph 60 below) and thus could receive one short and one long visit once every three months.
The applicant’s wife asked the court to grant her husband’s request.
The Lukiškės Remand Prison administration maintained that the applicant’s status as a detainee was more serious than that of a convicted person. Accordingly, he had no right to a conjugal visit. It also submitted that the remand establishment in any case had no premises for conjugal visits.
49.  On 21 November 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court observed that the applicant had been transferred to the Lukiškės Remand Prison as a suspect in the second criminal case in which his pre-trial detention had been ordered, and thus the Law on Pre-trial Detention was applicable to him. As to his dual status, the court held:
“A person who has been sentenced to deprivation of liberty, but in respect of whom the accusatory judgment has not yet entered into force, and (or) a convicted person in respect of whom pre-trial detention has been ordered [in another case] while they were serving a liberty deprivation sentence, have the same procedural status as those in pre-trial detention. Were it otherwise, a person who had committed no crime and had not been convicted, but had been placed in pre-trial detention, would be in a significantly worse situation than a person who had already been sentenced to deprivation of liberty and in respect of whom pre-trial detention had been ordered in another criminal case. In the instant case, the chamber finds it important that [the applicant], as a suspect in [the second] criminal case, has been placed in pre-trial detention and, for precisely that reason, he is held in the Lukiškės Remand Prison. On that ground, the entire set of pre-trial detention rules is applied to the applicant. Those regulations restrict some of his rights and freedoms with the aim of achieving a timely and unobstructed investigation of the criminal case by eliminating any possibility to convey information to other persons, which could obstruct the objective investigation of the case. Accordingly, the fact that the applicant has been convicted in another criminal case has no bearing on the resolution of this case.”
50.  The court also noted that any measure applied to a person held in custody could restrict his constitutional rights, and that the restriction on conjugal visits did not amount to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. Neither was the measure in breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life. Lastly, even though in accordance with point 124 of the Internal Regulations for Pre-trial Detention Facilities, convicts who, like the applicant, had been transferred to a pre-trial detention facility from a prison pending pre-trial investigation in another case could receive conjugal visits, this right could be substituted by short visits if the remand institution did not have facilities for a conjugal visit. The argument that the Lukiškės Remand Prison did not have specific premises for conjugal visits had not been overruled. Therefore, even assuming that the applicant had a right to a conjugal visit, such visits were impossible from a practical point of view.
51.  It transpires from the record of the Lukiškės Remand Prison that during the applicant’s detention pending investigation in the first criminal case, from 10 March 2004 until his conviction on 19 June 2006, he received thirty-two short-term visits from his wife and parents (of which seventeen visits from his wife). He also received five short-term visits from his wife and parents before being transferred to the Kybartai Correctional Home, namely between 19 June and 1 September 2006.
52.  The Lukiškės Remand Prison record also shows that from 1 September 2006, when the applicant was transferred to the Kybartai Correctional Home to serve his prison sentence, to 15 June 2007, when he was detained as a suspect in the second criminal case, the applicant received seven long-term visits from his wife and six short-term visits from his wife and a friend.
53.  During the applicant’s pre-trial detention in the second criminal case, namely from 15 June 2007 to 12 February 2008, he received four short-term visits from his wife.
54.  Following the decision by the Vilnius Regional Court of 12 February 2008, whereby the applicant’s detention in the second criminal case was not extended and he was transferred back to the Kybartai Correctional Home, and until 22 May 2009, when he was transferred to the Vilnius Second Correction Home, the applicant received twelve long-term visits from his wife and seven short-term visits from his wife and friends. Once in the Vilnius Second Correctional Home, until 28 September 2010, the day the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, the applicant’s wife had paid him thirteen long-term visits, and his friends and wife had paid him two short visits.
55.  In May 2006 the applicant submitted complaints to the authorities about the conditions of his detention in Lukiškės Remand Prison.
56.  On 16 June 2006, having verified the facts, the Emergency Situations Centre at the Ministry of Health acknowledged that the cells at the remand facility were overcrowded. The health care specialists noted that at the time of their inspection the applicant was being held with three other persons in a cell measuring 7.94 square meters, although they did not specify for how long that had been going on. His cell was clean, but needed some painting and floor repairs. The ventilation met applicable standards.
It transpires from the documents in the case-file before the Court that the applicant did not institute administrative court proceedings as regards the conditions of his detention in the Lukiškės Remand Prison.